Table of Contents

• Instrument Overview
• Additional Information
• Summary of Scores on PRQ85 Part 2
• Coding System for the PRQ85
• Tool Authors
• Request Form
• Bibliography
• Cited
• Use

Instrument Overview

The Personal Resource Questionnaire (PRQ) was developed in the late 1970's by Patricia Brandt and Clarann Weinert, who were at that time doctoral students at the University of Washington. The measure was based on a synthesis of concepts with strong emphasis on the work of Robert Weiss. The five hypothesized underlying dimensions were: a) the indication that one is valued (Worth), b) that one is an integral part of a group (Social Integration), c) the provision for attachment/intimacy (Intimacy), d) the opportunity for nurturance (Nurturance), and e) the availability of information, emotional, and material help (Assistance).

The Personal Resource Questionnaire is a two part measure. Part 1 consists of 10 life situations in which one might need assistance. It is designed to gather information about the person's resources, the satisfaction with those resources, and whether or not they have had that need in the past six months. This section is not scored in the usual sense, but rather can be viewed from a variety of perspectives to give an indication of the person's network. Part 2 is a 25 item scale based on the five dimensions of support listed above. Each item's response is scored on a 7 point Likert scale with scores ranging from 25 to 175 with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support. Over the years of use the alpha reliability of Part 2 has been demonstrated to be around .90. Depending on the research needs only Part 1 or Part 2 can be administered as they are not dependent. It has been our experience that often the level of perceived support is the area of interest and the research administers only Part 2.

Additional Information

As researchers from various disciplines began to recognize the potential impact of social support on stress, the maintenance of health, and the restoration of well-being, the need for adequate measurement instruments became apparent.   Even a cursory review of the literature indicates that numerous instruments have been designed to measure the concept of social support and to assess the social network.   The Personal Resource Questionnaire (PRQ) developed by Brandt and Weinert (1981) is no exception to this pattern.   The PRQ has been used in numerous studies and has demonstrated sound psychometric properties.

The specific purpose of this methodological study was to further establish the constrict validity of the Personal Resource Questionnaire.  The study compared the PRQ85 with five other prominent measures of social support and with one measure of individual affective state to examine convergence across support measures and to discriminate between social support measures and individual affective states.

This study used a cross sectional design in which 100 men and women, ages 25 to 65, contacted through church groups, clubs, and personal contacts completed a questionnaire booklet.  The booklet was designed according to the Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978) and includes the:  a) Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, (Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985); b) Social Support Scales, (Lin, Dean, & Ensel, 1981); c) Personal Resource Questionnaire, (Brandt & Weinert, 1981); d) Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire, (Norbeck, Lindsey, & Carrieri, 1981); e) Cost and Reciprocity Index, (Tilden, personal communication, March 11,1986); f) Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors, (Barrera, 1985); g) the Profile of Mood States, (McNair, Lorr, & Doppleman, 1971); and a Background Information sheet.

Convergent validity correlations were evaluated between Part 2 of the PRQ and each of the other social support scales and subscales.  To evaluate discriminate validity, a correlation matrix of all six social support measures was examined for the relationship between each social support measurement and the Profile of Mood States (see Table 1).  Cronbach’s alpha was used as an estimate of reliability of each instrument (see Table 2).

Funding Source: Zeta Upsilon Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International

LITERATURE CITED

Summary of Scores On PRQ85 Part 2

PRQ ORIGINAL

PRQ82

PRQ85

Coding System for the PRQ85

PRQ-Part 1: We suggest that you plan to allot a set of 15 columns for data entry for each of the ten life situations.  The first 12 columns would be assigned the sequence of possible resource choices, e.g., column (1) for PARENT, column (2) CHILD or CHILDREN, on to column (12).  Responses written in OTHER are assigned to one of the categories by the researcher.  A designation of 0-1 (dummy variable format) is used to enter each response.  The total number of resource choices is recorded in column (13).  If 11 or 12 are circled the total is zero regardless of what is circled for 1-10.  Column (14) would contain the 1-YES or 2-NO response for Section b.  The satisfaction level for Section c would be recorded in column (15).  Values would range from 1-VERY DISSATISFIED to 6-VERY SATISFIED.

  EXAMPLE

  On Question #1 the respondent indicated that in the case of urgent needs he/she would turn to PARENT, SPOUSE/PARTNER, RELATIVE and AGENCY.  They have had this need in the past six months, and they were FAIRLY SATISFIED with the help they received.  This question would be coded as follows:

1. The first third, fourth, and ninth columns each contain a 1 (indicating that PARENT, SPOUSE, RELATIVE, and AGENCY are resources for them in this situation).
2. The remaining eight allocated for resource choices would contain a 0, i.e., columns 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12.
3. Column (13) contains a 4 (total number of resource choices).
4. Column (14) contains a 1 (indicating a YES response to Section b).
5. Column (15) contains a 5 (indication a response of FAIRLY SATISFIED to Section c).

  PRQ-Part 2 : The second part of the Personal Resource Questionnaire consists of 25 items.  These items are numbered 11a through 11y and are scored in a straight forward manner, e.g., 7-STRONGLY AGREE to 1-STRONGLY DISAGREE.  Items 11 d, g, j, p, and x must be recoded (7=1, 6=2, 5=3, 3=5, 2=6, 1=7) to reflect the positive direction of the other 20 items in Question 11.  We are using only the total score, i.e. no subscales.

Return to regular view	Text-only	Updated: